D&D 5E Buffing up Greatweapon fighting style a little

[Arial Black]

Check paladin. It doesn't mention the, "even if a 1 or a 2" bit. I guess paladins are the supreme 2-hand weapon users!

It still has the crucial '...and must use the new roll' part.

 

[Arial Black]

See my post just above yours...

Damn ninjas!

 

[Corwin]

Is the new roll a 1 or a 2? Because they are still part of the damage roll... Therein lies the rub. And why I think the paladin version needs an errata clarification to bring it in line with the others.

 

[Corwin]

This illumination does substantially change the impact (pardon the pun) of the maul wielding paladin in our game...

 

[Willie the Duck]

Is the new roll a 1 or a 2? Because they are still part of the damage roll... Therein lies the rub. And why I think the paladin version needs an errata clarification to bring it in line with the others.

the 5e srd has it in the paladin as "When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll." which... I think covers it, but I guess I could be convinced otherwise.

Either way, since I doubt they intended the paladin version to be strictly better than the fighter version (and frankly, why not just roll 1d4+2 instead of d6, d6+2 for d8, etc. instead if you wanted the end result not to include 1s or 2s?), I would say that the intent is clear.

 

[Corwin]

Are you rehashing for a reason? I not only already conceded the point, but expressed a desire to see the PHB errata'ed to fix the mistake on the paladin.

 

[Willie the Duck]

And I conceded how the paladin text you were referencing could be read two ways. I'm at a loss to how this isn't normal discussion.

Moving on, while dueling seems to benefit s&b fighting, it could be argued that 2h fighting might not need as much a boost because it is overall better. Anyone think that the case? I would say no, but there is some points in its favor. 2h fighting certainly does have better feats. There's also the argument that a good offense is better than good defense (for all the normal reasons, monsters can just ignore tanky mctraffic pylon, a dead opponent has a 0% chance of hitting, etc.). Finally, as you go up in level, high AC is slightly lower utility than at low levels. Anyone find any of that convincing?

 

[Dausuul]

2h fighting certainly does have better feats. There's also the argument that a good offense is better than good defense (for all the normal reasons, monsters can just ignore tanky mctraffic pylon, a dead opponent has a 0% chance of hitting, etc.). Finally, as you go up in level, high AC is slightly lower utility than at low levels. Anyone find any of that convincing?

I do. It does not justify a big advantage for the Duelist, but it does justify a smallish one, and a smallish one is what the Duelist has.

 

[Xeviat]

Here's a really quick way to check things between Duelist and Great Weapon Fighting. I know D&D is not balanced against PVP, but lets just try something. A comparison between a sword and board fighter and a great weapon fighter with and without their styles, against each other. Yes, the dreaded DPR. Well, DPA (damage per attack).

Level 1-3, chain mail, Str 16

Sword and Board
AC 18, Attack +5, Damage 1d8+3 (7.5); vs AC 16, 50% chance to hit: (7.5*0.5)+(4.5*0.05crit)=3.975

Greatsword
AC 16, Attack +5, Damage 2d6+3 (10); vs AC 18, 40% chance to hit: (10*0.4)+(7*0.05crit)=4.35; greatsword is ahead by 9%, which I think is within tolerance.

What about styles? Level 1-3

Duelist
AC 18, Attack +5, Damage 1d8+5 (9.5); vs AC 16, 50% chance to hit: (9.5*0.5)+(4.5*0.05crit)=4.975

Greatsword
AC 16, Attack +5, Damage 2d6*+3 (11.33...); vs AC 18, 40% chance to hit: (11.33..*0.4)+(8.33...*0.05crit)=4.95; longsword is ahead by a negligible amount.

Lets jump up to higher levels

Level 8; Str 20, Plate armor

Sword and Board (no style)
AC 20, Attack +8, Damage 1d8+5 (9.5); vs AC 18 is 55% to hit: (9.5*0.55)+(4.5*0.05crit)=5.45

Greatsword (no style)
AC 18, Attack +8, Damage 2d6+5 (12); vs AC 18 is 45% to hit: (12*0.45)+(7*0.05crit)=5.75; greatsword is ahead by 6%

Greataxe (no style)
AC 18, Attack +8, Damage 1d12+5 (11.5); vs AC 18 is 45% to hit: (11.5*0.45)+(6.5*0.05crit)=5.5; greataxe is ahead by 1%.

Now for styles:

Duelist
AC 20, Attack +8, Damage 1d8+7 (11.5); vs AC 18 is 55% to hit: (11.5*0.55)+(4.5*0.05crit)=6.5775

Great Weapon Fighter
AC 18, Attack +8, Damage 2d6*+5 (13.33...); vs AC 18 is 45% to hit: (13.33...*0.45)+(8.33...*0.05crit)=6.4167; longsword is like 3% ahead, so it's gained a little more.

And just for comparison; great axe great weapon fighter:
AC 18, Attack +8, Damage 1d12*+5 (12.33...); vs AC 18 is 45% to hit: (12.33...*0.45)+(7.33...*0.05crit)=5.9167; longsword is 11% ahead ...

So, the argument that Duelist is better than GWFing because great weapons start out better than one-handed weapons MIGHT be true. But, adding the greataxe into the mix makes me wonder if the 2d6 combined with great weapon fighting is causing the problem. If great weapon fighting was better, and great weapons were 1d12 instead of 2d6, then they may be better off.

But, since the two characters are likely fighting against the same AC, not each other, a great weapon wielder does have a higher likelyhood of killing the creature before it can get an extra attack, negating a whole attack that the shield AC would have negated. Shields mean 10% of attacks are going to miss, so a fight would have to go 10 rounds before that shield added up to that extra attack avoided. Fights go faster than that, so a great weapon may still be the better choice.

 

[Lord Twig]

How about as a house rule allowing re-rolls for any result of 3 or less?

Using a longsword one-handed with Dueling gives a 6.5 average damage. Using it two-handed and re-rolling 3 or less would give you an average damage of 6.55.

For a greatsword this would increase the average damage from 7 to 8.5. For a greataxe it would increase it from 6.5 to 7.625.